Why CEOs Can’t Stay Silent in the Wake of Events Like Charlottesville

Laura Schneider for HBR

The last week has been filled with the disconcerting aftermath of the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, leaving many business leaders to wonder how they should react — what they should tell their employees and customers.

A number of CEOs — including Apple’s Tim Cook, Goldman Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein, and Walmart’s Doug McMillon — have taken strong public stands, condemning white supremacists, racism, and violence and calling for tolerance and unity. And prominent business leaders on White House advisory councils sent a strong message by resigning or disbanding in response to President Trump’s equivocation in condemning the white supremacists at Charlottesville and his blaming both sides for the violence. But other CEOs are still struggling to figure out what is an appropriate response.

For those on the fence, here are some considerations.

Although the topic is complex, and it may not be easy to find the right words, staying silent sends the wrong signal to employees. It risks them questioning their leader’s moral character, can increase their worries about how their leaders will react to other forms of prejudice and immoral behavior, and can undermine their respect for and trust in their leaders.

How about customers’ reactions? Evidence shows that people outside the organization see CEOs more favorably if they take a public stance on current issues, as long as the topic appears relevant to the company’s business. It is especially beneficial for leaders to speak out when their stance is broadly supported, as was the case with Charlottesville: President Trump’s failure to clearly and consistently condemn the “Unite the Right” protesters led to bipartisan criticism and large demonstrations. Evidence from Aaron Chatterji, of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, and Michael Toffel, of the Harvard Business School, shows that if consumers favor the company’s point of view, it increases their interest in buying the company’s products.

In general, Americans care about business leaders’ positions on social issues. In one experiment, Chatterji and Toffel gave almost 3,400 participants information about Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and a statement that expressed concern about how the law could promote discrimination against homosexuals. When that statement was attributed to the mayor of Indianapolis (versus not attributed to anyone), support for the law dropped substantially. But the same was just as true when the statement was attributed to two CEOs: the then-CEO of Indianapolis-based Angie’s List and Tim Cook of Apple, which is based in Cupertino, California. That the out-of-state CEO of Apple could have as much impact in shaping attitudes as the city’s mayor highlights the power of CEOs’ bully pulpit.

How can CEOs go about using this influence? We’d suggest keeping these three things in mind:

Tie it to the bottom line. In an era when workplaces and markets are increasingly racially and ethnically diverse, CEOs should consider making the business case when addressing controversial social issues. In the wake of the event in Charlottesville and the president’s reluctance to lay clear blame for it on white supremacists, Walmart CEO McMillon did just that. He said in a statement: “We too felt that he missed a critical opportunity to help bring our country together by unequivocally rejecting the appalling actions of white supremacists.” He added: “Representing a company with the largest and one of the most diverse groups of associates in the U.S., and an even more diverse customer base of tens of millions of customers, we believe we should stay engaged to try to influence decisions in a positive way and help bring people together. I will continue to strongly advocate on behalf of our associates and customers, and urge our elected officials to do their part to promote a more just, tolerant and diverse society.”

Be painfully clear. It seems obvious to suggest that in communicating to the public and their employees, business leaders should try to avoid ambiguity — but the data suggests this is something they often fail to do. In a survey of over 500 employees across a wide range of industries that one of us conducted, 88% of the respondents indicated that internal communications from their leaders regularly lack clarity. Research has found that when leaders’ communications are clear, their employees’ engagement increases. Clarity is obviously critical when communicating about sensitive social issues.

Encourage employees to support each other. Beyond taking a stand on intolerance external or internal to their organizations, leaders should consider explicitly making a call for employees to unite against intolerance and support those who might be its targets. By encouraging their employees to reach out and support one another, leaders can help foster inclusive and productive workplaces, signaling to those who might otherwise feel ostracized or marginalized that they are valued and heard.

In these tumultuous times, business leaders shouldn’t worry about whether it is appropriate for them to take a public stand in defending the values that are dear to them and their organizations. It is. Their employees, customers, and society at large look to them to set the right example. When they take a strong public stand against the kind of behavior exhibited in Charlottesville, they are acting in their company’s best interests.